[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 12:30:59 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 3:31 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> Actually, if there aren't yet archs lacking SYS_clone, this API
> regression may be a good argument not to drop SYS_clone on new archs
> yet until there's a way for new archs to get the same behavior
> (unspecified stack size).
That is a good point, but it also appears that the behavior of
clone3() is unintentional
here, I'm fairly sure it was meant to be a drop-in replacement for clone() with
additional features.
Not sure what the best fix for this is, as the check for size==0 was clearly
intentional, but seems to prevent this from working. A special flag to ignore
the size, or a magic size value like -1ull might work, but neither of them
is a great interface.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
